TSTP Solution File: MGT018+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT018+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Aug 31 09:06:47 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT018+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.13/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:52:35 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.57 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.63 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s
% 0.21/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 % File : MGT018+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.21/0.63 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.21/0.63 % Problem : Larger organizations have shorter reorganization
% 0.21/0.63 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.21/0.63 % English : The bigger an organization is at the beginning of
% 0.21/0.63 % reorganization, the sooner disbanding due to reorganization
% 0.21/0.63 % (possibly) happens - i.e., the shorter is the reorganization.
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Refs : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.21/0.63 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.63 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.63 % Source : [Kam94]
% 0.21/0.63 % Names :
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Status : Theorem
% 0.21/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v7.5.0, 0.05 v7.4.0, 0.00 v7.0.0, 0.07 v6.4.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.08 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.13 v5.3.0, 0.17 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.0.0, 0.05 v4.1.0, 0.06 v4.0.1, 0.05 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.1.0
% 0.21/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of atoms : 38 ( 0 equ)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 13 ( 9 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of connectives : 36 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 30 &)
% 0.21/0.63 % ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 22 ( 17 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of variables : 30 ( 29 !; 1 ?)
% 0.21/0.63 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Comments : "Not published due to publication constraints." [Kam95].
% 0.21/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 fof(mp5,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X,T] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.21/0.63 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----The level of structural inertia increases with size for each class
% 0.21/0.63 %----of organizations.
% 0.21/0.63 fof(a5_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X,Y,C,S1,S2,I1,I2,T1,T2] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.21/0.63 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.21/0.63 & class(X,C,T1)
% 0.21/0.63 & class(Y,C,T2)
% 0.21/0.63 & size(X,S1,T1)
% 0.21/0.63 & size(Y,S2,T2)
% 0.21/0.63 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.21/0.63 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.21/0.63 & greater(S2,S1) )
% 0.21/0.63 => greater(I2,I1) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----The higher inertia an organization has at the beginning of
% 0.21/0.63 %----reorganization, the sooner disbending due to reorganization
% 0.21/0.63 %----(possibly) happens - i.e., the shorter is the reorganization.
% 0.21/0.63 fof(a14_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X,Y,Rt,C,I1,I2,Ta,Tb,Tc] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( ( organization(X,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & organization(Y,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & ~ organization(Y,Tc)
% 0.21/0.63 & class(X,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & class(Y,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization(Y,Ta,Tc)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization_type(X,Rt,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization_type(Y,Rt,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & inertia(X,I1,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & inertia(Y,I2,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & greater(I2,I1) )
% 0.21/0.63 => greater(Tb,Tc) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 fof(t18_FOL,conjecture,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X,Y,Rt,C,S1,S2,Ta,Tb,Tc] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( ( organization(X,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & organization(Y,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & ~ organization(Y,Tc)
% 0.21/0.63 & class(X,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & class(Y,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization(Y,Ta,Tc)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization_type(X,Rt,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & reorganization_type(Y,Rt,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & size(X,S1,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & size(Y,S2,Ta)
% 0.21/0.63 & greater(S2,S1) )
% 0.21/0.63 => greater(Tb,Tc) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.64 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.64 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.64 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.64 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.21/0.64 %VarNum:66(SingletonVarNum:20)
% 0.21/0.64 %MaxLitNum:13
% 0.21/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.21/0.64 %SharedTerms:22
% 0.21/0.64 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
% 0.21/0.64 %singleGoalClaCount:13
% 0.21/0.64 [1]P1(a1,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [2]P1(a5,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [3]P2(a6,a7)
% 0.21/0.64 [4]P3(a1,a8,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [5]P3(a5,a8,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [6]P5(a1,a7,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [7]P5(a5,a6,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [8]P6(a1,a4,a10)
% 0.21/0.64 [9]P6(a5,a4,a2)
% 0.21/0.64 [10]P7(a1,a9,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [11]P7(a5,a9,a4)
% 0.21/0.64 [12]~P1(a5,a2)
% 0.21/0.64 [13]~P2(a10,a2)
% 0.21/0.64 [14]~P1(x141,x142)+P4(x141,f3(x141,x142),x142)
% 0.21/0.64 [15]~P4(x153,x151,x154)+~P4(x155,x152,x156)+~P3(x155,x159,x156)+~P5(x153,x157,x154)+~P5(x155,x158,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P3(x153,x159,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158)
% 0.21/0.64 [16]~P4(x161,x166,x164)+~P4(x165,x167,x164)+~P3(x165,x168,x164)+~P6(x161,x164,x162)+~P6(x165,x164,x163)+~P7(x165,x169,x164)+P1(x161,x162)+P2(x163,x162)+~P1(x161,x164)+~P1(x165,x164)+~P3(x161,x168,x164)+~P7(x161,x169,x164)+~P2(x166,x167)
% 0.21/0.64 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.64 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.21/0.64 (P4(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)),
% 0.21/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14])).
% 0.21/0.64 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.21/0.64 (P4(a5,f3(a5,a4),a4)),
% 0.21/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,14])).
% 0.21/0.64 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.21/0.64 (~P2(f3(a5,a4),f3(a1,a4))),
% 0.21/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,7,13,10,12,9,11,17,8,5,6,1,4,2,14,15,16])).
% 0.21/0.64 cnf(34,plain,
% 0.21/0.64 ($false),
% 0.21/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,31,28,7,17,6,5,3,1,2,15]),
% 0.21/0.64 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.64 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.64 % Total time :0.010000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------